European Journal of Psychology of Education

2008, Vol. XXIII, nº 4, 477-492

© 2008, I.S.P.A.

Predictors of cheating and cheating attributions:

Does classroom context
influence cheating and blame for cheating?
Tamera B. Murdock
University of Missouri, Kansas City, USA

Anne S. Beauchamp
University of Kansas, USA

Amber M. Hinton
University of Missouri, Kansas City, USA

The frequency of cheating in today’s classrooms undermines

educators’ efforts and threatens students’ learning. Data from 444 high
school students in 48 math and science classrooms at two time points
were analyzed to examine the classroom and individual influences on
students’ attributions of blame for cheating and to examine the
relationship between students’ attributions of blame for cheating and
subsequent cheating behavior. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed
that student-level and aggregate views of teacher characteristics were
related to concurrent and subsequent attribution of cheating blame to
teachers and to subsequent cheating behaviors, over and above the
influence of moral emotion dispositions.

Academic cheating is so pervasive among today’s high school students that the majority
engages in dishonest behavior in one form or another. A nationally representative survey of
36,000 U.S. adolescents found approximately 60% of high school students admitted to
cheating on a test during the prior school year, with 14% and 35% respectively admitting to
cheating two or more times and 33% reported copying internet documents (Josephson Institute
of Ethics, 2006). Most scholars agree that the prevalence of academic dishonesty has
increased over the past three decades (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001; Whitley, 1996)
and some argue that this trend mirrors larger changes in cultural norms towards tolerating
dishonest behavior in many realms, justifying it as a legitimate means to an end when
circumstances such as competition or the perceived unfair advantages of others make it
difficult to accomplish one’s goals through honest behaviors (Callahan, 2005).
478 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

Students typically report that cheating is morally wrong. In the abstract, they believe it is
“not ok,” but when pressed to make judgments about specific incidents of cheating, they find
many ways to neutralize, rationalize or justify the behavior and these rationalizations are more
correlated with cheating that are one’s moral judgments about the behavior (Murdock &
Stephens, 2007; Stephens, 2004). From an attributional perspective, these excuses, sometimes
referred to as “cheating attitudes” or “neutralizing attitudes,” reduce the amount of personal
blame associated with cheating by either externalizing the cause of the behavior (e.g., the
teacher’s weaknesses), or introducing what Weiner (1995) calls mitigating circumstances,
which are personally uncontrollable events like “having to work more hours” at one’s place of
employment (see LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990; Pulvers & Diekhoff, 1999). These
attributional principles predict that such excuses will reduce the amount of blame that is
assigned to an individual for the behavior, thereby minimizing the amount of anger and
maximizing the amount of sympathy that others feel toward the individual (Weiner, 1995;
Weiner, Amirkhan, Folkes, & Verette, 1987; Weiner, Figueroa-Munoz, & Kakihara, 1991).
Presumably, these excuses also allow the cheater to maintain a positive self-concept.
Reviews of the literature on academic dishonesty conclude that students’ cheating attitudes
are among the strongest predictors of actual cheating behavior, with more dishonesty occurring
when students can justify their behavior in a given context (Mc Cabe & Trevino, 1997; Miller,
Murdock, Anderman, & Poindexter, 2007; Murdock & Anderman, 2006; Whitely, 1998).
Whereas some measures of attitudes focus on students’ general beliefs about the acceptability
of cheating (e.g., Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Gardner & Melvin, 1988), most
measures are highly contextualized, referring to the acceptability of cheating within a specific
classroom context.

Instructional context, blame for cheating, and cheating behavior

Teachers’ policies and practices are among the most frequently used justifications of
dishonest behavior. For example, in a study of college students, those who were admitted
cheaters in the past year also more strongly agreed with 11 neutralizing techniques than did
non-cheaters (Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). Among all students, externalizing
blame to the teacher by saying things such as, “the instructor assigns too much work,” was the
most commonly used neutralization technique. Moreover, in line with attributional principles,
the more students neutralized cheating, the less they perceived guilt, embarrassment and
negative reactions from friends to be effective deterrents to dishonesty. This may be because
these penalties would presume that the student had accepted personal responsibility for the
behavior. In contrast, punishments from the university, such as the assignment of failing
grades for cheating, were viewed as more effective, consistent with the idea that cheating is a
problem external to the cheater.
Perceived poor instruction has been linked both to cheating and neutralization of cheating
among undergraduate students (Pulvers & Diekhoff, 1999). After rating their classroom on
seven dimensions, including personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction,
task orientation, innovation, and individualization, participants also completed a neutralizing
scale and reported whether they had cheated in that class. Students who admitted to cheating
had higher neutralization scores than non-cheaters; they also rated the instruction as poorer in
terms of task orientation (operationalized as organized, clear instruction) and on satisfaction
(operationalized as interesting presentation). The level of endorsement of several of the
neutralizing strategies was moderately associated with students’ views of the classroom, with
more critical attitudes explaining 14% of the variance in forgiveness of cheating. More
permissive cheating attitudes among high school and college students have also been associated
with perceiving that the goal structure of their classroom emphasizes performance versus
mastery goals (Anderman, 2007; Anderman et al., 1998). Performance goal structures refer to
environments where ability, social comparison and absolute correctness are emphasized.
These are generally considered less pedagogically sound than mastery classrooms, which
focus more on effort, improvement and mastery (Ames, 1992; Midgley, 2002).
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 479

Although the above studies intimate that poorer instructional environments lead students
to justify cheating as more acceptable, and possibly to cheat more often, all of the data from
these studies come from one-time correlational designs, limiting our ability to determine the
extent to which poor teaching and perceived injustices in the classroom are simply post-hoc
excuses for cheating as opposed to predictors of cheating behavior. To better tease out this
causal sequence, in a previous study, we used hypothetical scenarios with high school students
to manipulate two aspects of the classroom context that have been repeatedly linked to
cheating and cheating attitudes: pedagogical competence and high performance/low mastery
goal structures (Murdock, Miller, & Kohlhardt, 2004). We reasoned that both poor versus
good teaching and performance versus mastery goal structures might be seen as negatively
influencing students’ opportunity to do well in a given class, thereby increasing their assignment
of blame to teachers and lessening blame towards students. As hypothesized, students blamed
teachers more and students less, saw cheating as more justifiable, and rated cheating as more
likely to occur in the classrooms that were portrayed as performance focused and/or with poor
pedagogy than in classrooms portrayed as mastery focused and/or with good pedagogy. Students
viewed cheating as less likely to occur in mastery focused classrooms with good pedagogy than
in any other classroom scenerio. All effect sizes were small to moderate. Similar results were
found when the level of teachers’ interpersonal competence was manipulated.
Through additional studies, we replicated the above findings with undergraduate and
graduate students, and also confirmed that perceived fairness of the classroom was a mediator
between the manipulated classroom context variables and the assignment of blame (Murdock,
Miller, & Goetzinger, 2007). We also asked students whether they themselves had ever cheated
on exams. Although cheaters justified dishonesty more than did non-cheaters, both groups of
students altered the proportion of their assigned teacher versus student blame for cheating as a
function of the portrayed classroom context. All effect sizes were small to moderate. Together,
these studies provide more definitive evidence that students use aspects of the instructional
context to form attitudes about cheating acceptability; however, because the studies relied on
hypothetical vignettes, links to actual behavior could not be ascertained.
Relying on vignettes also insured more consistency in what attributes of the classroom
students focused on, as compared to the complex nature of an actual classroom situation.
Indeed, in studies of live classrooms there is as much variance within classes in terms of what
students see as there is between classes (Miller & Murdock, 2007), suggesting that judgments
about what is seen is a function of both the individual and the context. As such, when students
blame teacher behavior for their own cheating, these attributions may have been influenced not
only by the actual circumstances in the classroom, but also by their dispositional tendencies to
assume or avoid responsibility for morally circumspect behavior. This paper adopts Tangney’s
theory of moral emotions as the framework for understanding these dispositional differences.

Disposition emotions and attributions

As with attribution theory, Tangney’s theory of moral emotions (Tangney, 1991; Tangney
& Dearing, 2002; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007) posits linkages between people’s
cognitive and emotional reactions to negative events and their behavior in moral situations.
Developed to explain individual differences in the level of congruence between moral standards
and moral behavior, Tangney’s theory departs from Weiner’s attribution model in two major
ways. To begin with, whereas attribution theory emphasizes the role of a person’s attributions in
a specific context and the emotions that result from those cognitions as determinants of future
behavior, Tangney emphasizes how more general patterns of between-person differences in one’s
proneness to two self-referent emotions, shame and guilt, influence their behavior in situations
when the person violates societal norms for decent or moral behavior (Tangney, Stuewig, &
Mashek, 2007). In addition, the focus of Tangney’s theory is not on the relationship between
attribution dimensions, such as locus and stability, and future behavior, but rather on the role that
people’s proneness to two moral emotions, guilt and shame in morally compromising situations
play in their moral decision-making. To this end, Tangney’s Test of Self Conscious Affect
480 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

(TOSCA) assessed people’s responses in situations where they have clearly failed to follow some
moral code (e.g., cheating), harmed someone, or let someone down. Although the scenarios on
the TOSCA all clearly place the reader in the role as the locus of the negative behavior, there are
individuals difference in how respondents’ frame the responsibility for the events and thus their
anticipated emotions and likely behaviors in these situations. Participants’ selected responses to
these situations measure their propensity to be guilt-versus shame-prone, which, in turn, will
likely influence behavior (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007).
Tending to attribute moral failures to unstable, controllable deficits (Tracy & Robins,
2006), guilt-prone people feel accountable for their actions, accepting blame for a given
behavior and, presumably, the responsibility for changing it. Thus, blame is accepted in a way
that fosters growth and improvement and leads to attempts to ameliorate the situation and to
apologetic gestures. Guilt-prone people seem to have a more responsible and constructive
coping style than people who are not guilt-prone and are less apt to externalize blame onto
others. People with higher levels of guilt-proneness are also likely to be high in empathy, as
they understand that everyone sometimes does things that are not desirable, and high in self-
esteem, as they don’t view their failures are permanent blemishes on their character (Tangney
& Dearing, 2002). Behaviorally, guilt-proneness is associated with stronger adherence to
adaptive, normative behaviors. For example, in a longitudinal study of children from 5th grade
through adolescence, higher levels of guilt-proneness were associated with lower levels of
maladaptive acts such as suicide attempts, drug and alcohol use, and high school suspensions
(Tangney & Dearing, 2002).
Shame-proneness describes people who view their transgressions as caused by some
stable and uncontrollable deficit in themselves (Tracy & Robins, 2006), often resulting in
anger and hostility, and low self-esteem. Shameful feelings are more painful than guilt
feelings because they concern the core self (Tangney et al., 2007). Given that shameful
responses imply a denial of personal responsibility for one’s actions, it is not surprising that
shame proneness, in contrast with guilt proneness, is related to delinquency, externalizing
symptoms and other signs of behavioral maladjustment. A likely defensive response to
extremely shameful emotions is externalizing blame onto someone else (Tracy & Robins,
2006), as evidenced by moderate correlation between shame-proneness and externalization
scores on the TOSCA. However, Tangney argues that although shame-prone individual may
be more apt to have externalizing attribution styles, the two phenomena are not the same. In
general, whereas shame-proneness is a strong, direct predictor of anger (Tangney & Dearing,
2002), it appears that the relations between shame-proneness and behavior may be cognitively
mediated by the externalizing dimension of attributional style. For example, in a series of
recent studies, the links between shame-proneness and behavioral aggression were meditated
by externalization, suggesting that while shame-prone people may have heightened levels of
anger and hostility, turning that shame into outward negative behavior is dependent on making
external attributions for the failure, justifying one’s negative responses. In contrast, there were
unmediated relations between guilt-proneness and aggression, with higher guilt-proneness
reducing the effects of aggression. In sum, both guilt- and shame-proneness refer to
dispositional emotional tendencies in morally compromising situations.

Present study

Across the extant literature, findings suggest that (a) students who cheat typically
externalize blame for cheating more so than those who do not cheat; and (b) all students
externalize blame for cheating more when they perceive their instructional context as poorer
versus better. Still unknown however is the role that classroom versus individual variables
play in the assignment of cheating blame and the extent to which situational attitudes about
the classroom context versus more general dispositional tendencies to blame predict later
cheating behavior. To address the first issue, we utilized hierarchical linear modeling to
examine how classroom characteristics versus individuals’ perceptions of the classroom and
individuals’ externalizing tendencies predicted students’ view of hypothetical cheating in their
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 481

classroom as attributable to the students who cheated versus the teacher. We hypothesized that
students would rate the teacher as proportionately more responsible for cheating if they were
more apt to externalize, but that within classrooms, those who saw teachers as less competent
and respectful would also attribute more hypothetical blame to teachers. We also anticipated
between-class differences in the extent to which teachers versus students were blamed for
cheating; we hypothesized that this classroom-level variance in hypothetical blame would be
predicted by the aggregate classroom-level view of teachers’ competence and respect.
We were also were interested in determining the extent to which students’ attributions for
hypothetical cheating in their particular classroom situation as well as their general emotional
and attributional tendencies actually predicted cheating behavior, which would support the
possibility that externalization may actually serve as a motivating mechanism, increasing the
likelihood that students will cheat. From an attribution perspective, one might see how external
attributions could serve a motivating function. Just as youth are more apt to engage in defensive
aggression to the extent they perceive another’s harmful act as deliberate (Graham & Hudley,
1992; Graham, Hudley, & Williams, 1992), it may be that students who perceive teachers as
being knowingly unfair by providing poor instruction react defensively and feel they must violate
the school norms against cheating.
To answer this question, we examined the extent to which students’ judgments of the
classroom context in the fall, their situational and dispositional attributions, and their
proneness to guilt and shame in moral situations, predicted their actual cheating behavior as
measured at the end of the school year. Consistent with the previous literature, we anticipated
that students’ guilt-proneness would be inversely related to cheating, their shame-proneness
would be unrelated to cheating, and their dispositional tendency to externalize would positively
predict cheating. Because students were nested within classrooms, all analyses were conducted
using hierarchical linear modeling. Among those who did cheat during the course of the year, we
further examined the relations between their a priori situational attributions, their externalizing
disposition and their actual attributions for cheating in the spring.

Methods

Participants

Data for this study were collected as part of a larger study of context, motivation, and
cheating in high school math and science classrooms. All math and science teachers in the
three high schools in one semi-urban district were invited to participate in a study about
classroom environments, motivation, and dishonesty. Approximately 80% of the teachers
(math n=30; science n=27) chose to participate and one class from each teacher was selected
using a stratified random sampling technique to insure that all levels of student ability were
represented. Within these classrooms, a total of 777 students agreed to participate.
Teacher and student report data were collected at two time points, in the fall (September
2004) and spring (April 2005), during regularly scheduled class times. Because of our interest
in predicting cheating which was measured at time 2, we have only reported data from those
students who provided data at both time points1. Thus, our final sample consisted of 444
students in 48 classrooms. Females represented 55.7% of the participants. The majority of the
students were Caucasian (75.3%). The remaining students were Hispanic (6.6%), African
American (4.8%), Asian American (4.3%), Native American (1.6%), or reported belonging to
another ethnic category (7.3%). The mean age for all participants was 15 years and 4 months
(SD=1.08 years). Attrition across time was largely due to the schools’ practice of moving
students to different sections at the semester break to accommodate changes in electives. This
attrition resulted in several of the initial classes (n=9) being dropped from the study because
there were too few participants remaining at time 2.
482 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

Measures

All data for this study are based on students’ self-report. Measures from the fall time 1 data
collection (September) included students’ views of the specified teachers’ pedagogical
competence and respect for students as well as their ascribed blame (teacher and student) for
hypothetical cheating in that class. Students were not asked about their own cheating in the fall;
moreover, they were explicitly informed that they would not be asked about their own cheating in
behavior in order for their responses on the measures of cheating attitudes and teacher behaviors
to be uninhibited. At time 2 (April), we assessed students’ actual cheating that classroom, their
attributions for cheating if they had cheated, their guilt- and shame-proneness and their
dispositional tendencies to externalize. Given that guilt- and shame-proneness as well as
dispositional attribution style are presumed to remain relatively constant over time, and the
scenarios used in this measure were not specific to this context, we used this measure as a
predictor of both time 1 and time 2 outcomes. Finally, if at time 2 the students said they had
cheated on an exam at some point during that specific class over the course of the academic year,
we had them rate their agreement with several potential attributions for their behavior.

Moral emotions and externalizing. The test of self-conscious affect for adolescents (TOSCA-A;
Tangney, 1990). TOSCA-A is a paper-and-pencil self-report questionnaire composed of 14
everyday scenarios, each followed by four statements describing different ways people may feel
or think in that situation. Each of the four statements represents different reactions meant to
capture affective, cognitive, and behavioral features associated with guilt, shame, externalizing,
and detachment; however, for the purposes of this study, only data from guilt, shame, and
externalizing reactions were used. For example, one scenario is, “You trip in the cafeteria and spill
your friend’s milk”. The reactions used for this study were, “I’d be thinking that everyone is
watching me and laughing” (shame-prone), “I would feel sorry, very sorry. I should have watched
where I was going” (guilt-prone), and, “I couldn’t help it, the floor was slippery” (externalizing).
Participants were instructed to indicate how likely it is that each of the four statements would be
true for them (not at all likely, unlikely, maybe, likely, very likely). The measure results in three
scaled scores that were used in this research: guilt-proneness (D=.84), shame-proneness (D=.76)
as well as external attribution style (the cognitive tendency to externalize; D=.81).

Teacher quality. Two aspects of teacher quality were assessed: pedagogical skill and inter-
personal respect. Teacher pedagogical skill was assessed using 7 items (D=.85) designed for this
study. Using a five point scale, students were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with
items such as, “The course goals and requirements for this class are clearly explained,” This
teacher is well prepared for class,” and, “This teacher uses class time effectively”. Scores on this
scale were highly correlated with a one-item assessment of overall teacher quality (r=.64) and
a one-item assessment of overall amount learned (r=.56).
Teacher respect was assessed with three items (D=.85), also designed for this study, on
which students rated their level of agreement with statements such as, “This teacher embarrasses
or insults students in class” (reflected), and, “This teacher shows respect towards students”.
Items on the two teacher scales loaded on separate factors and did not highly cross load
with other assessed dimensions of teaching environment that were not used in this study
(teacher belonging and teacher responsiveness). Scores on this scale were highly correlated
with a one-item assessment of overall teacher quality (r=.51, p<.001) and somewhat less
correlated with a one-item assessment of overall amount learned (r=.36, p<.001).

Blame for hypothetical cheating. Blame for hypothetical cheating was assessed in the
fall, with two items (D=.82) to measure teacher blame: “If a student cheated on a test in this
class, how much would you blame the teacher?” and, “If a student in this class cheated on a
test, how much would it be the teacher’s fault?” and two parallel items to measure student
blame (D=.74). The two scales were moderately correlated with one another (r=-.50, p<.001).
To account for the dependency in these scores, we computed a teacher proportion blame score
by dividing the teacher blame score by total blame (the sum of teacher and student blame).
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 483

Cheating. To measure whether a student had cheated in the math/science class during the
current academic year, students were asked at time 2 to report the frequency with which they
had employed six methods of cheating on tests or quizzes during that math or science class in
that academic year (e.g., “How often have you copied answers from another student’s test?”).
The four response options ranged from “never” to “more than three times”. Because of the
highly skewed nature of these variables, for the purposes of these analyses, we dichotomized
cheating into “cheater” and “non-cheater”. Students were classified as a “non-cheater” if they
responded “never” to all 6 items and “cheater” if they responded in any other way.

Attributions for cheating. At time 2, students who reported cheating were asked to rate
their attributions for cheating using a scale ranging from 1, “not at all a reason,” to 7, “very
much a reason”. Four attributions for cheating were examined in this study: unfair teacher, did
not study, poor teacher, and easier to cheat.

Results

Predictors of blame for cheating

A-priori blame. In order to determine how much variation in students’ cheating blame
was a function of classroom context variables versus personal externalizing dispositions, we
constructed a 2-level HLM with proportion of blame as the dependent variable. Higher scores
indicate that a larger proportion of the blame was attributed to teachers than lower scores
indicate. At level 1, we entered students’ scores on Tangney’s (Tangney, Wagner, Burggraf,
Gramzow, & Fletcher, 1991) measure of externalization. In model 2, we added students’
personal perceptions of their teachers’ pedagogical skill and level of respect for students.
Model 3 incorporated two classroom-level predictors: the classroom-aggregated scores on
measures of teachers’ pedagogical skill and teachers’ respect.
Because attributional style is considered to be a personality trait rather than influenced by
the classroom context, students’ scores were grand-mean centered to control for the fact that
some classrooms may include a disproportionate amount of people with higher levels of
externalization. Thus, the intercept value at level one E00 represents the predicted proportion
of blame toward teachers for a student whose externalization scores are equal to the average
across all students in the sample. In comparison, students’ personal views of teachers’
competence and respect were group-mean centered, so that E00 is the predicted proportion of
blame for a student who has the average view of teachers’ pedagogical and interpersonal
competence in their given class. By group mean centering, the level two intercept J00 is the
predicted proportion of teacher blame by a student with an average level of externalization
whose views of the teacher are average within their classroom, and whose classroom as a
whole views their teacher’s pedagogical competence and respect as average within the sample
of classrooms (see Kreft, de Leeuw, & Aiken, 1995).
In model 1, we entered the dispositional measure of externalization (see Table 1, model 1).
Consistent with our hypothesis, higher levels of externalization were associated with higher
levels of attributed blame to teachers relative to students for cheating in their given math or
science class [E=.06, t(402)=4.14, p<.001]. In model 2, students’ perceptions of their teachers’
competence and respect were added to the model. As anticipated, within a given classroom,
the more a student viewed their teacher as competent and respectful, the less relative blame
for hypothetical cheating in that classroom the student ascribed to their teacher [respectively,
E=-.09, t(400)=-6.82, p<.001; E=-.05, t(400)=-2.49, p=.01].
The aggregates of teacher competence and teacher respect were entered at level 2 (see Table 1,
model 3). Only the teacher competence aggregate was a significant predictor of between-class
cheating attributions, with proportionately less blame for hypothetical cheating attributed to
teachers when in classrooms with higher aggregate ratings of teacher competence [E=-.14, t(45)=
-2.34, p=.02]. Teacher respect did not account for a significant amount of between-class variance.
484 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

Table 1
Models of relative teacher blame for classroom cheating with level 1 predictors and student
aggregate level 2 predictors
Variable Model 1 B (SE B) Model 2 B (SE B) Model 3 B (SE B)
Intercept .15 (.01)*** -.15 (.02)*** -.16 (.01)***+
Level 1 predictors
Externalization .06 (.02)*** -.03 (.01)*** -.03 (.01)+***
Teacher competence -.09 (.01)*** -.09 (.01)***+
Teacher respect -.05 (.02)*** -.05 (.02)***+
Level 2 predictors (classroom aggregates)
Teacher competence aggregate -.14 (.06)***+
Teacher respect aggregate -.04 (.04).***+
Overall model F2=115.47 (47); p<.001 F2=142.76 (47); p<.001 F2=87.35 (45); p<.001

Note. +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Post-hoc blame. At time 2, we collected attributions for actual cheating from the 156
students who had admitted to cheating. Two of these attributions externalized blame to the
teacher (“teacher was unfair,” and “teacher was not competent”) while two others suggested
the student was taking more personal responsibility (“didn’t try” and “it was easier”). Factor
analysis as well as correlations confirmed that the two sets of attributions were discrete from
one another. We therefore created two variables, “teacher blame” and “self blame”.
Unfortunately, the number of students who had admitted to cheating was not large enough for
a multi-level model. Simple correlations (see Table 2) suggest that higher levels of teacher
blame for actual cheating are associated with having judged the teacher more harshly in the
fall (less competent and respectful, more to blame for hypothetical cheating in that classroom)
as well as a general attributional style of externalizing in morally compromising situations.
Surprisingly, students were more apt to accept responsibility themselves if they were less
guilt-prone and externalized more. Note, however, that several other relations in this table are
worthy of mentioning. Whereas Tangney (Tangney & Dearing, 2002) presumes relations
between shame-proneness and externalization, in our study, such relations did not exist. Instead,
there was a moderate positive correlation between shame- and guilt-proneness; however, the
tendency to externalize was related to guilt-proneness only, with higher levels of externalization
among those who were less guilt-prone.

Table 2
Intercorrelations among attributions for actual cheating, perceptions of the teacher,
externalizing attributional style and proneness to moral emotions (N=143)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Actual cheating attributed to self (T2) -.022 .008** -.047** -.013** -.196** -.251** -.134**
Actual cheating attributed to teacher (T2) -.262** -.320** -.187** -.290** -.144** -.051**
Perceived teacher competence (T1) -.521** -.441** -.266** -.177** -.129**
Perceived teacher respect (T1) -.387** -.184** -.113** -.032**
Blame attributed to teacher for hypothetical cheating (T1) -.206** -.152** -.005**
Externalizing attribution style -.468** -.048**
Proneness to guilt -.560**
Proneness to shame

Note. T1=fall, T2=spring; *p<.05, **p<.01.

Regression analyses using teacher-blame and self-blame were next conducted to see if
perceived context at time 1 predicted post-cheating attributions after controlling for hypotheti-
cal blame at time 1 and the tendency to externalize. In model 1, we entered the blame for
hypothetical cheating at time 1 and the score on students’ tendency to externalize blame. On
step 2, we included students’ ratings of the teachers’ pedagogical competence and respect at
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 485

time 1. In the regression on attributions to oneself, model 1 was significant [R 2 =.04,

F(2,144)=3.11 p<.05]; only externalization uniquely predicted self-attributions [E=.225,
t(405)=3.25 p<.01] . The addition of the classroom context variables in model 2 did not add to
our predictive ability ['R2=.01, F(2,142)=.58, p>.05]. In the regression analysis on attribution
to teachers, model 1 was significant [R2=.10, F(2,144)=8.08, p<.001]; only externalization
uniquely predicted teacher-attributions [E=.262, t (405)=2.49, p<.01]. The addition of the
classroom context variables in model 2 added to our predictive ability ['R 2 =.06,
F(2,142)=5.20, p<.01]; significant predictors in this model were externalization [E=.223,
t(405)=2.78, p<.01] and perceived teacher respect [E=-.234, t(146)=-2.55, p<.01].

Summary. Results from these analyses both suggest that students’ attributions of blame to
teachers for cheating are in part a function of their general patterns of blame assignment, but
are also influenced by what they view as happening in the classroom. Both within and across
classrooms, poorer perceived pedagogy is linked to more blame towards teachers for hypothetical
and actual incidents of academic dishonesty.

Predictors of actual subsequent cheating

Our final set of questions predicted students’ own actual cheating behavior. Two questions
were of examined: To what extent do students’ blame of teachers for hypothetical cheating
versus their emotional and cognitive dispositional responses to moral transgressions predict
their own cheating behavior? Second, do perceptions of the classroom at time 1 continue to
predict cheating after controlling for the above variables? To examine these questions, we
used a logistic HLM analysis with admitted cheater at time 2 (yes or no) as the dependent
variable. In model 1, we entered the time 1 hypothetical cheating blame variable, where higher
scores indicate that students endorsed a proportionately higher amount of blame assigned to
teachers for hypothetical cheating in that classroom at time 1. In model 2, we entered the
dispositional measures of externalization, as well as proneness to the moral emotions of guilt
and shame. We subsequently added students’ personal perceptions of the teacher’s competence
(pedagogical skill and respect) at level 1 and the aggregates at level 2 to examine whether
there were additional influences of classroom context on cheating unmediated by attributions
or moral emotions.
In model 1 (see Table 3), the relationship of perceived blame to cheating status was in the
expected direction, but not significant [E=.91, t(405)=1.01, p=.056, odds ratio=2.51], with an
increased odds of cheating associated with proportionately more teacher blame at time 1.
When proneness to moral emotions and attributional style were also included as predictors in
model 2, only externalizing was a significant predictor [E=.49, t(399)=2.41, p<.05, odds
ratio=1.62] with higher tendencies to externalize associated with increased odds of cheating.

Table 3
Models of actual cheating
Variable Model 1 B (SE B) Model 2 B (SE B) Model 3 B (SE B)
Intercept 0-.36 (.14)* -.37 (.14)*** -.38 (.14)**+
Level 1 predictors
Hypothetical teacher blame -1.26 (.53)* -.88 (.56)*** -.58 (.67)**+
Externalization -.64 (.17)*** -.60 (.18)**+
Proneness to guilt -.40 (.36)*** -.37 (.36)**+
Proneness to shame -.34 (.27)*** -.29 (.27)**+
Teacher competence -.01 (.24)**+
Teacher respect -.29 (.16)+**
Level 2 predictors (classroom aggregates)
Teacher competence aggregate .65 (.65)**+
Teacher respect aggregate -1.03 (.50)**+
Overall model F2=94.57 (47); p<.001 F2=96.79 (47); p<.001. F2=87.69 (45); p<.001

Note. +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

486 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

When students’ perceptions of the classroom were added in model 3, the influence of
teacher blame was attenuated to almost zero, suggesting that any relations between hypothetical
blame assigned to teachers and actual cheating were related to viewing the classroom as not
ideal. Within classrooms, higher perceived levels of teacher respect at time 1 (level 1) were
marginally related to a lower probability of cheating at time 2 [E=-.30, t(395)=-1.73, p=.08,
odds ratio=0.74]. Across classrooms, higher aggregated perceived respect at time 1 reduced
the odds of cheating in a class at time 2 [E=-1.03, t(45)=2.05, p<.05, odds ratio=0.36].

Discussion

Across the extant literature, students’ neutralizing attitudes about cheating are consistently
related to their actual academic dishonesty, with teachers’ behavior often implicated as a key
rationale for why cheating is acceptable. To date, however, the extent to which classroom
practices affect levels of teacher blame has been limited by one-shot correlational designs
and/or vignette methodologies and have not controlled for people’s general dispositional
tendencies to blame others for their non-normative behavior. To minimize correlations due to
shared method variance, in this study, we assessed students’ views about the classroom and
hypothetical blame for cheating independently of their actual cheating. We also included
dispositional measures of students’ affective and cognitive styles in personally compromising
situations.
Data from our sample of high school math and science students suggest that teacher
practices do make a difference in how students reason about the acceptability of cheating, and
that they may influence students’ actual tendency to cheat. Specifically, among all students,
after controlling for externalizing tendencies, students’ blame of teachers for hypothetical
cheating within their classroom was predicted by their own views of the teachers’ pedagogical
competence and respect as well as by the classroom aggregate views of the teachers’ pedagogy,
which is treated as a more objective view of teachers’ practices to explain between-class
variance (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Further, when dispositional and classroom variables
were used to predict the attributions students personally used to explain their own cheating
behavior in the targeted classroom, views of teacher respect from early in the school year
predicted increased blaming of teachers for their cheating. These results thus replicate those of
correlational (Anderman et al., 1998; Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001) and vignette-based
studies where both pedagogical competence and interpersonal competence were noted to
effect judgments of blame for cheating (Murdock et al., 2004; Murdock et al., 2007).
Moreover, when predicting cheating behavior, dispositional proneness to moral emotions well
as attribution style were included in the model prior to the entry of the classroom variables;
thus, the relations must reflect more than the tendency of shame-prone people to view the
classroom more negatively and guilt-prone people to view it more positively (Hinton,
Beauchamp, & Murdock, 2008).
Although our results provide some support for the role of both personal and contextual
variables in attributions of responsibility, the final model in our HLM analyses indicates that a
substantial amount of between-class variance in teacher blame was unaccounted for, suggesting
either that there are additional uncontrolled individual differences in the make-up of the
classrooms involved in the study, or that there are other variations in teachers’ practices that
are relevant to students’ cheating attitudes which should be considered. One reasonable
variable that was not examined in this study was classroom goal structure. Much prior
research has argued that the classroom goal structure affects both cheating attitudes and
cheating (Anderman, 2007), the strongest findings being that decreased cheating is associated
with classrooms where the emphasis is on mastery, improvement and effort. Although in this
study we collected data on students’ perceptions of classroom goals structures, mastery goal
practices were extremely highly correlated with other measures of the teaching context (i.e.,
pedagogy) at both the individual and classroom level (Miller & Murdock, 2007), making them
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 487

poor candidates to explain the remaining between class variance and a source of multicollinerity
if included in the model.
Stronger links between the classroom environment and attributions may have been
ascertained if our measures of classroom context had been more specifically related to the
outcomes of interest. In this study, we specifically asked about cheating on tests and
attributions of responsibility for test cheating. Although our general measure of pedagogical
quality included some items related to the quality and fairness of teachers’ testing practices,
these items were embedded with many other questions about instruction more generally.
Measures that focus directly on students’ perceptions of the assessment environment (Danner,
2007) may be useful in helping explain the unaccounted for variance.
It also appears from these data that students’ assessments of the extent to which their
teacher would be responsible for cheating in their specific classroom is largely unpredictive of
whether students actually cheat, with the time 1 blame variable having a marginally significant
relationship to time 2 cheating. Recall, however, that we measured hypothetical cheating
attributions by asking students how they would assign blame for cheating if it were to occur in
the class, with no reference to who was actually cheating. Given that attributions for others’
behavior are often influenced by dispositions more than attributions for our own behavior (i.e.,
self-serving attribution bias, Miller & Ross, 1975), we may have underestimated the relations
between perceived classroom context and situational blame for cheating and actual cheating
behavior.
Note that the effects of hypothetical teacher blame become completely negligible once
students’ dispositional externalization of blame is added to the model, and the dispositional
measure does, in fact focus, on attributions for one’s own behavior. Given that Tangney
(1994) has consistently shown links between moral emotions and moral behaviors, it may be
that students who cheat have developed a pattern of rationalizing their transgressions
regardless of the context. However, it is also the case that the measurement of context-specific
blame was less robust than the measures of moral emotions, focusing solely on externalizing
blame to the teacher versus the student. This captures only a fraction of the ways that students
neutralize cheating behavior. Other strategies include denying responsibility by devaluing the
importance of the class or subject area (thereby making cheating, “not a big deal”), and
pointing out the normativeness of the behavior (LaBeff et al., 1990; Pulvers & Diekhoff,
1999). Classes that are perceived as having a poor instructional environment might easily
undermine students’ motivation for the course, increasing the use of these two neutralizing
strategies in addition to that of blaming the teacher. While our focus in this study was
specifically on students’ blaming of teachers, future studies might include other context-
specific neutralizing attributions.
Recall that perceptions of the classroom at time 1 predicted variance in cheating behavior
above and beyond time 1 teacher blame, dispostional externalizing, or proneness to guilt and
shame. Within a class, the students who found the teacher to be more respectful were
marginally less likely cheat; across classes, rates of cheating were lower among in classes with
higher average ratings of perceived teacher respect at time 1. Students’ actual behavior was
therefore linked to their initial assessments of the classroom in ways that were not entirely
mediated by attributions of blame or moral emotions. It may be that had we measured a broader
range of attributions at time 1, as noted above, that the mediating links between environment
and behavior would have been stronger. Alternatively, while we have focused on the perceived
unfairness that students might feel in classrooms with poor pedagogy, thereby justifying
cheating, other emotional states, such as frustration from not being able to learn (e.g., Pekrun,
Goetz, Wolfram, & Perry, 2002) may be the relevant mediators. Finally, some of the effects of
perceived teacher respect on cheating may be direct effects, rather than mediated effects.
When teachers behave in ways that indicate they are not taking their job seriously, are likely
to be interpreted by students as disrespectful (Wentzel, 1997). But some of these behaviors,
such as carelessly proctoring exams, also increase the ease with which students can cheat,
thereby perhaps not only influencing the justifiability of the behavior, but the ease of the
behavior. Note that in this study, of the items on the perceived respect scale, only one was
488 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

behavioral in nature, referring to teacher’s tone when talking to students. More efforts are
needed to understand what students are specifically referring to when they talk about being
disrespected. Without this specificity of knowledge, it is difficult to provide feedback to teachers
on what they should change within their classroom, as teachers’, students’ and observers’
views of the same context often diverge (Murdock & Miller, in press).
While future studies are needed to explore individual and contextual predictors of cheating
and cheating attributions, the present study offers implications for the classroom. First, in
addition to implementing strategies directly aimed at reducing cheating (Cizek, 2003; Whitely &
Keith-Speigel, 2002), teachers can help increase the responsibility students take for academic
dishonesty and decrease cheating incidents by communicating their respectfulness and
pedagogical competence to their students more clearly. At the same time, these behaviors may
directly impact student cheating by lessening the opportunity to be dishonest. The research also
underscores the importance of civic/moral education aimed at fostering adaptive attributions for
one’s own behavior. Similar to Graham’s (1990) work with teachers, these data suggest that
encouraging students to feel guilt for their wrongdoings, and not to externalize blame onto others
might also encourage higher levels of academic honesty.

Notes
1 The only exception to this is when measures of classroom context were included in our models which were based on
student aggregates from time 1. We formed these aggregates based on all students in the final 48 classrooms who
responded to the classroom measures at time 1. As objective measures of classroom context, more raters improve the
level 2 reliability (Miller & Murdock, 2007).

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Anderman, E.M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom and school goal structures on academic cheating. In
E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock, (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on academic cheating (pp. 87-106). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Anderman, E.M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93.

Callahan, D. (2005). The cheating culture. Orlando, FL, Hartcourt.

Cizek, C.J. (2003) Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in assessment. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Danner, F. (2007, April). The effects of negative perceptions of classroom assessment practices and sense of class
belonging on high school students’ self-reported academic cheating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Gardner, W.M., & Melvin, K.B. (1988). A scale for measuring attitude toward cheating, Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 2, 429-432.

Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham
& V.S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict
(pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (1992). An attributional approach to aggression in African-American children. In
D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 75-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression among African-
American and Latino young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28, 731-740.

Haines, V.J., Diekhoff, G.M., LaBeff, E.E., & Clark, R.E. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment,
and the neutralizing attitude. Research in Higher Education, 25, 342-354.
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 489

Hinton, A., Beauchamp, A.S., & Murdock, T. (2008). Dispositional predictors of individual versus classroom
perspectives of classroom goal structure. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Boston. Josephson Institute of Ethics (2006, October 15). Report card on the ethics of
American youth. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/reportcard/

Kreft, I.G.G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L.S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1-22.

LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R.E., Haines, V.J., & Diekhoff, G.M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating.
Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190-198.

McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus
investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379-396.

McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research.
Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219-232.

Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Miller, A.D., & Murdock, T.B. (2007). Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate student
perceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32, 83-104.

Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological
Bulletin, 82, 213-225.

Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., Anderman, E.M., & Poindexter, A.L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics
of academically dishonest students. In E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on
academic cheating. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Murdock, T.B., & Anderman, E.M. (2006). Motivational approaches to classroom cheating: Towards an integrated
model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41, 129-145.

Murdock, T.B., & Miller, A. D. (in press). Issues in the use of multilevel modeling to examine the effects of classroom
context. In M. Wosnitza, S.A. Karabenick, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global
to local perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.

Murdock, T.B., & Stephens, J. M. (2007). Is cheating wrong? Students’ reasoning about academic dishonesty.In
E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on academic cheating (pp. 229-253).
Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

Murdock, T.B., Hale, N.M., & Weber, M.J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and
social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96-115.

Murdock T.B., Miller, A., & Goetzinger, A. (2007). Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments
about cheating: Mediating and moderating processes. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 141-169.

Murdock, T.B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students’
judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 765-777.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Wolfram, T., & Perry, R.P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self regulated learning and
achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91-105.

Pulvers, K., & Diekhoff, G.M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom
environment. Research in Higher Education, 40, 487-498.

Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stephens, J.M. (2004, April). Beyond reasoning: The role of moral identities, sociomoral regulation and social context
in academic cheating among high school adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Tangney, J.P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-
Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102-111.

Tangney, J.P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
598-607.
490 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

Tangney, J.P. (1994). The mixed legacy of the superego: Adaptive and maladaptive aspects of shame and guilt. In
J.M. Masling & R.F. Bornstein (Eds.), Empirical perpectives on object relations theory (pp. 1-28). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Tangney, J.P., & Dearing, R.L. (2002). Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford.

Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D.J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 345-372.

Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P.E., Burggraf, S.A., Gramzow, R., & Fletcher, C. (1991, June). Children’s shame-proneness,
but not guilt-proneness, is related to emotional and behavioral maladjustment. Poster session presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.

Tracy, J.L., & Robbins, R.W. (2006). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological
Inquiry, 15, 103-125.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press.

Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munoz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and communication strategies related to
causal perceptions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 4-13.

Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V.S., & Verette, J.A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a
naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 316-324.

Wentzel, K.R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.

Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1996). Does “cheating” help? The effect of using authorized crib notes during examinations. College
Student Journal, 30, 489-493.

Whitley, B.E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher
Education, 39, 235-274.

Whitley, B.E., Jr., & Keith-Speigel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

La fréquence de la tricherie scolaire met actuellement à mal les

efforts des enseignants et menace l’apprentissage des étudiants.
L’analyse de données recueillies en deux temps sur 444 étudiants issus
de 48 classes de mathématiques et de sciences a permis d’explorer les
influences de la classe et les influences individuelles sur l’attribution
par les étudiants de la responsabilité de la tricherie et d’examiner la
relation entre les attributions de responsabilité de la tricherie par les
étudiants et leurs comportements subséquents de tricherie. La
modélisation hiérarchique linéaire a indiqué que les mesures au niveau
individuel (étudiant) et l’opinion (agrégée au niveau de la classe)
qu’ont les étudiants des enseignants étaient liés, au-delà de l’influence
de dispositions relatives aux émotions morales, (1) à l’attribution,
simultanée et subséquente, de la responsabilité de la tricherie aux
enseignants et (2) à des comportements subséquents de tricherie.

Key words: Attribution, Cheating, Classroom context, Motivation.

Received: October 2007

Revision received: April 2008
 PREDICTORS OF CHEATING AND CHEATING ATTRIBUTIONS 491

Tamera B. Murdock. Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA. E-mail:

Murdocktb@umkc.edu; Web site: www.umkc.edu

Current theme of research:

Contextual and individual predictors of student motivation and cheating. Measurement of classroom environments.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Miller, A.D., & Murdock, T.B. (2007). HLM models for estimating the reliability of classroom context variables: The
assessment of classroom goal structures. Special issue focused on lateen modeling, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32, 83-104.

Murdock, T.B., & Anderman, E. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Current status and future
directions. Educational Psychologist, 41, 121-145.

Anderman, E.A., & Murdock, T.B. (2007). The Psychology of Academic Cheating. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Press.

Murdock, T.B., & Miller, A.D. (in press). Disentangling the effects of classroom goal structures: Conceptual and
methodological issues associated with multilevel model. In M. Wosnitza & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Domain
specificity versus generality in motivation. Erlbaum.

Murdock, T.B., Miller, A.D., & Goetzinger, A. (2007). Contextual effects on cheating of undergraduate and graduate
students: Mediating and moderating processes. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 141-169.

Anne S. Beauchamp. University of Kansas, Psychology and Research in Education, Joseph R. Pearson Hall,
1122 West Campus Rd., Room 621, Lawrence, KS 66045-3101, USA. E-mail: annebeau@ku.edu;
Web site: www.ku.edu

Current theme of research:

My main research interests are stereotypes in the classroom and achievement motivation. Specifically, I am concerned
about the influence of social categorization on self-concept, student-teacher relationships, motivation, and achievement,
as well as stereotype maintenance and change. My interests also include the associations among achievement goals, self-
concept and performance, and the measurement and exploration of implicit achievement goals.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Beauchamp, A.S. (in press). Goals and goal theory. In S.J. Lopez (Ed.), Encyclopedia of positive psychology. Boston,
MA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

Beauchamp, A.S. (in press). Lawrence Kohlberg. In E. Anderman (Ed.), Psychology of classroom learning: An
encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reference USA.

Beauchamp, A.S. (in press). Stereotype threat. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Beauchamp, A.S., & Peyton, V. (2007). Stereotype threat and achievement goals. In R.G. Craven, J. Eccles, & M.T. Ha
(Eds.), Self-concept, motivation, social and personal identity for the 21st century. Proceedings of the Fourth
International Biennial SELF Research Conference, in Ann Arbor, MI. Sydney, Australia: SELF Research Centre,
University of Western Sydney. [Available online at http://self.uws.edu.au]

Murdock, T.B., & Beauchamp, A.S. (in press). Academic cheating. In E. Anderman (Ed.), Psychology of classroom
learning: An encyclopedia. Detroit, MI: MacMillan Reference USA.

Amber M. Hinton. Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 4825 Troost Ave. Rm.
108, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA. E-mail: AmberHinton@umkc.edu; Web site: www.umkc.edu

Current theme of research:

My research interests lie in the broad areas of relationships, sexuality, and motivation. In the educational arena, I am
interested in the relationships between students as well as the student-teacher relationship. I am specifically interested in
contextual and individual predictors of students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. I am concerned with examining
the differences that exists within the classroom environment in addition to those differences that exist between classes and
how these influence personal goal structures as well as the perceived goal structure of the classroom.
492 T.B. MURDOCK, A.S. BEAUCHAMP, & A.M. HINTON

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Beauchamp, A.S., & Hinton, A.M. (2007). Assessment of a social cognitive motivational model of achievement
utilizing actual effort and casual attributions. Poster Presentation at American Educational Research Association,
Spring 2008.

Beauchamp, A., Hinton, T., James, T., Meers, M., Weide, C., Boyce, E., & Murdock, T.B. (2007). Classroom context,
motivation and academic dishonesty: An examination of math and science classroom in the North Kansas City
School District. Technical report prepared for the district.

Hinton, A.M., & Beauchamp, A.S. (2007). Perceiving achievement goal structure in the classroom: Individual factors
(to be presented at APA, 2008).